Evaluating natural language generation (NLG) systems remains a core challenge of natural language processing (NLP), further complicated by the rise of large language models (LLMs) that aim to be general-purpose. Recently, large language models as judges (LLJs) have emerged as a promising alternative to traditional metrics, but their validity remains underexplored. This position paper argues that the current enthusiasm around LLJs may be premature, as their adoption has outpaced rigorous scrutiny of their reliability and validity as evaluators. Drawing on measurement theory from the social sciences, we identify and critically assess four core assumptions underlying the use of LLJs: their ability to act as proxies for human judgment, their capabilities as evaluators, their scalability, and their cost-effectiveness. We examine how each of these assumptions may be challenged by the inherent limitations of LLMs, LLJs, or current practices in NLG evaluation. To ground our analysis, we explore three applications of LLJs: text summarization, data annotation, and safety alignment. Finally, we highlight the need for more responsible evaluation practices in LLJs evaluation, to ensure that their growing role in the field supports, rather than undermines, progress in NLG.

LLM-based agents have been widely applied as personal assistants, capable of memorizing information from user messages and responding to personal queries. However, there still lacks an objective and automatic evaluation on their memory capability, largely due to the challenges in constructing reliable questions and answers (QAs) according to user messages. In this paper, we propose MemSim, a Bayesian simulator designed to automatically construct reliable QAs from generated user messages, simultaneously keeping their diversity and scalability. Specifically, we introduce the Bayesian Relation Network (BRNet) and a causal generation mechanism to mitigate the impact of LLM hallucinations on factual information, facilitating the automatic creation of an evaluation dataset. Based on MemSim, we generate a dataset in the daily-life scenario, named MemDaily, and conduct extensive experiments to assess the effectiveness of our approach. We also provide a benchmark for evaluating different memory mechanisms in LLM-based agents with the MemDaily dataset.

Algorithm configuration, which involves selecting algorithm parameters based on sampled problem instances, is a crucial step in applying modern algorithms such as SAT solvers. Although prior work has attempted to understand the theoretical foundations of algorithm configuration, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of why practical algorithm configurators exhibit strong generalization performances in real-world scenarios. In this paper, through the lens of machine learning theory, we provide an algorithm-dependent generalization bound for the widely used model-based algorithm configurators under mild assumptions. Our approach is based on the algorithmic stability framework for generalization bounds. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first generalization bound that applies to a model closely approximating practical model-based algorithm configurators.

Ensuring fairness in machine learning models is a critical challenge. Existing debiasing methods often compromise performance, rely on static correction strategies, and struggle with data sparsity, particularly within minority groups. Furthermore, their utilization of sensitive attributes is often suboptimal, either depending excessively on complete attribute labeling or disregarding these attributes entirely. To overcome these limitations, we propose FairNet, a novel framework for dynamic, instance-level fairness correction. FairNet integrates a bias detector with conditional low-rank adaptation (LoRA), which enables selective activation of the fairness correction mechanism exclusively for instances identified as biased, and thereby preserve performance on unbiased instances. A key contribution is a new contrastive loss function for training the LoRA module, specifically designed to minimize intra-class representation disparities across different sensitive groups and effectively address underfitting in minority groups. The FairNet framework can flexibly handle scenarios with complete, partial, or entirely absent sensitive attribute labels. Theoretical analysis confirms that, under moderate TPR/FPR for the bias detector, FairNet can enhance the performance of the worst group without diminishing overall model performance, and potentially yield slight performance improvements.

Linear structural causal models (SCMs) are used to analyze the relationships between random variables. Directed edges represent direct causal effects and bidirected edges represent hidden confounders. Generically identifying the causal parameters from observed correlations between the random variables is an open problem in causality.

Decision-making models for individuals, particularly in high-stakes scenarios like vaccine uptake, often diverge from population optimal predictions. This gap arises from the uniqueness of the individual decision-making process, shaped by numerical attributes (e.g., cost, time) and linguistic influences (e.g., personal preferences and constraints). Developing upon Utility Theory and leveraging the textualreasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), this paper proposes an Adaptive Textual-symbolic Human-centric Reasoning framework (ATHENA) to address the optimal information integration. ATHENA uniquely integrates two stages: First, it discovers robust, group-level symbolic utility functions via LLMaugmented symbolic discovery; Second, it implements individual-level semantic adaptation, creating personalized semantic templates guided by the optimal utility to model personalized choices. Validated on real-world travel mode and vaccine choice tasks, ATHENA consistently outperforms utility-based, machine learning, and other LLM-based models, lifting F1 score by at least 6.5% over the strongest cutting-edge models. Further, ablation studies confirm that both stages of ATHENA are critical and complementary, as removing either clearly degrades overall predictive performance. By organically integrating symbolic utility modeling and semantic adaptation, ATHENA provides a new scheme for modeling human-centric decisions. The project page can be found at https://yibozh.github.io/Athena.

Recently, 3DGANs based on 3DGaussian splatting have been proposed for high quality synthesis of human heads. However, existing methods stabilize training and enhance rendering quality from steep viewpoints by conditioning the random latent vector on the current camera position. This compromises 3D consistency, as we observe significant identity changes when re-synthesizing the 3D head with each camera shift. Conversely, fixing the camera to a single viewpoint yields high-quality renderings for that perspective but results in poor performance for novel views. Removing view-conditioning typically destabilizes GAN training, often causing the training to collapse.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating scientific hypothesis generation, yet existing approaches primarily yield coarse-grained hypotheses lacking critical methodological and experimental details. We introduce and formally define the new task of fine-grained scientific hypothesis discovery, which entails generating detailed, experimentally actionable hypotheses from coarse initial research directions. We frame this as a combinatorial optimization problem and investigate the upper limits of LLMs' capacity to solve it when maximally leveraged. Specifically, we explore four foundational questions: (1) how to best harness an LLM's internal heuristics to formulate the fine-grained hypothesis it itself would judge as the most promising among all the possible hypotheses it might generate, based on its own internal scoring-thus defining a latent reward landscape over the hypothesis space; (2) whether such LLM-judged better hypotheses exhibit stronger alignment with ground-truth hypotheses; (3) whether shaping the reward landscape using an ensemble of diverse LLMs of similar capacity yields better outcomes than defining it with repeated instances of the strongest LLM among them; and (4) whether an ensemble of identical LLMs provides a more reliable reward landscape than a single LLM. To address these questions, we propose a hierarchical search method that incrementally proposes and integrates details into the hypothesis, progressing from general concepts to specific experimental configurations. We show that this hierarchical process smooths the reward landscape and enables more effective optimization. Empirical evaluations on a new benchmark of expert-annotated fine-grained hypotheses from recent literature show that our method consistently outperforms strong baselines.1

Graph embeddings play a critical role in graph representation learning, allowing machine learning models to explore and interpret graph-structured data. However, existing methods often rely on opaque, high-dimensional embeddings, limiting interpretability and practical visualization. In this work, we introduce Topological Evolution Rate (TopER), a novel, lowdimensional embedding approach grounded in topological data analysis.

However, in open-ended environments lacking coordination rules, agents tend to act in self-interested ways. The central challenge in achieving coordination lies in credit assignment--fairly evaluating each agent's contribution and designing pricing mechanisms that align their heterogeneous goals. This problem is critical as LLMs increasingly participate in complex human-AI collaborations, where fair compensation and accountability rely on effective pricing mechanisms. Inspired by how human societies address similar coordination challenges (e.g., via temporary collaborations like employment or subcontracting), a cooperative workflow Shapley-Coop is proposed. ShapleyCoop integrates Shapley Chain-of-Thought--leveraging marginal contributions as a principled basis for pricing--with structured negotiation protocols for effective price matching, enabling LLM agents to coordinate through rational task-time pricing and post-task reward redistribution. This approach aligns agent incentives, fosters cooperation, and maintains autonomy. We evaluate Shapley-Coop across two multi-agent games and a software engineering simulation, demonstrating that it consistently enhances LLM agent collaboration and facilitates equitable credit assignment.